The conventional wisdom is that a progressive (i.e. deinterlaced) signal is superior to an interlaced signal. A progressive signal displays an entire frame while an interlace picture delivers two fields; one with even scan lines and one with odd scan lines. As such, a progressive signal displays a crisper, more brilliant picture without flicker. A progressive signal is also less susceptible to interlace or motion artifacts.
There are a variety of techniques that may be implemented to deinterlace a signal. However, not all deinterlaced signals are of the same quality. Most deinterlacers employ vertical interpolation, weave or a motion adaptive technique to deinterlace an interlaced signal. Other advanced techniques utilize edge detection or other similar techniques to deinterlace an interlaced signal. A problem is that once the interlaced signal is deinterlaced, the resulting progressive signal includes any inadequacies inherent in the particular deinterlacing process that is used.
What is needed is a method, system and device that detects original scan lines in a deinterlaced signal. What is further needed is method, system and device that generates an interlaced signal from original scan lines detected in a deinterlaced signal. What is further needed is a method, system and device to detect and extract the original scan lines from a deinterlaced signal, and then generates an optimized deinterlaced signal using those original scan lines.
The foregoing examples of the related art and limitations related therewith are intended to be illustrative and not exclusive. Other limitations of the related art will become apparent to those of skill in the art upon a reading of the specification and a study of the drawings.